He said the UK is a world leader in wind energy technology, which has the potential to create many jobs, and that Navitus intends to involve local businesses in the project – claimed to offset 1.3 million tonnes of carbon – where possible.

Mr Unsworth called on the audience to base their views on facts, saying the developer had contacted a wide array of experts and concluded there would be no significant impact on bird populations, the World Heritage Site status of the Jurassic Coast, or tourism, and that noise levels would be within acceptable parameters.

Promoted stories

Teacher Susan Chapman, described as possibly the area’s most active green campaigner, said she was there “for future generations, who aren’t very well represented here today”.

She warned of the dangers posed by climate change and said “urgent action” was needed to mitigate them. She praised wind technology, dismissing a number of common criticisms about the effect on tourism and birds as false.

“Let’s say yes to Navitus, yes to a clean future for our children,” she added.

But chartered civil engineer Roy Pointer, of the Poole and Christchurch Bays’ Association, said: “We want to see this scheme confined to the dustbin of history.”

He said the project was “too big, too close and in the wrong location”. He criticised wind energy as expensive and said the turbines would be hazardous to birds and shipping.

Dr Andrew Langley, of lobby group Challenge Navitus, said the turbines were “very large structures which can be seen at long range”, and the onshore cable construction work would be equivalent to that “of an eight-lane motorway”.

He said the noise and debris from pile driving at sea would have an adverse impact on marine organisms, affecting five million square metres of sea bed.

“We have choices about where we build onshore wind farms. Navitus Bay is just a bad plan and in the wrong place,” he concluded.

Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood said Bournemouth was an “exceptional resort” in the same league as Barcelona but the wind farm would put people off visiting. Bournemouth West MP Conor Burns said he was “angry” at how the company “had treated the community”.

The council’s director of tourism, Mark Smith, said the authority had data showing the number of people visiting the town would be reduced by 32 per cent during the construction and 14 per cent long term.

Elsewhere, he said, wind farms had been sited more appropriately to negate the visual impact.

Views from the audience were mixed, although those speaking against the application had numbers on their side. One speaker said “Do not allow another blot on the landscape”, referring to the IMAX building, but another said she found the turbines “majestic” in appearance.

Tony Yates, of Hengistbury Head Residents' Association, said residents “overwhelmingly” opposed the project, while Chris Colledge, of West Cliff Residents’ Association, said the majority of people there felt it was “too big and too close”.

“As a member of the angling community, one cannot underestimate the effect this will have on marine life,” he said.

Angela Pooley, of East Dorset Friends of the Earth, said: “Climate change will have a far greater effect on the landscape than this wind farm.”

Professor John Sharpe, from Highcliffe, claimed more than 3,500 mature oak trees would need to be cut down to accommodate the cables, and Poole councillor Tony Woodcock said that if only 60 jobs were to be created in the area it would not make up for the economic impact.

After hearing from the speakers, residents were invited to record their views on a feedback form.

Council leader Cllr John Beesley said the turnout reflected the great strength of feeling among residents, and that their views would have “very significant weight” with the Planning Inspectorate, which will consider the application.

“There is a lot of data to go through and we need to make sure we have understood all that before we give an evidence-based view,” he added.

“It needs to be based on planning policy and it needs to be sustainable.”

PLANNING INSPECTORATE TO HOLD INFORMATION MEETINGS

REPRESENTATIVES of the Planning Inspectorate visit Bournemouth later this month to explain more about the wind farm planning process.

The organisation confirmed last week that a valid planning application with 18,000 pages of supporting documents has been lodged by Navitus Bay Development Ltd.

Anyone who wants to keep informed has between Tuesday, May 13, and Monday, June 23, to register as an interested party.

The Inspectorate is holding an information event at The Wessex Hotel, West Cliff Road, on Thursday, May 22, from 2-7pm, with presentations at 3pm and 6pm.

The public can drop in at any time to find out more and ask questions.

If you wish to attend, telephone 0303 444 5000, email NavitusBay@ infrastructure.gso.gov.uk or inform the team via post.

NAVITUS Bay wind farm is designated a nationally significant infrastructure project, so the final decision will be made at a national level.

The £3billion wind farm would have up to 194 turbines, up to 200 metres high, in the bay around 13 miles from Bournemouth and Poole.

Share article

The power cables would hit land at Taddiford Gap, between Barton-on-Sea and New Milton, and run 22 miles inland to a new sub-station at Mannington, near Wimborne.

The project, part of a third round of offshore wind projects on designated Crown Estate sites, is a joint venture between energy firms Eneco Wind UK – part of Dutch firm Eneco – and EDF Energy, the UK subsidiary of French energy giant EDF. The decision will be made after the next election and based on the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendations.

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?The-Bleeding-Obvious

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Score: 22

boardsandphotos says...8:30am Mon 12 May 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again. The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.

[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?[/p][/quote]Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again.
The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.boardsandphotos

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again. The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.

Score: 5

Franks Tank says...8:39am Mon 12 May 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Or a coal powered power station in the middle of Poole. It could go on that plot of land next to the twin sails bridge approach road. Now why hasn't anybody thought of that before?

[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?[/p][/quote]Or a coal powered power station in the middle of Poole.
It could go on that plot of land next to the twin sails bridge approach road.
Now why hasn't anybody thought of that before?Franks Tank

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Or a coal powered power station in the middle of Poole. It could go on that plot of land next to the twin sails bridge approach road. Now why hasn't anybody thought of that before?

Score: 14

Franks Tank says...8:52am Mon 12 May 14

boardsandphotos wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again. The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.

The cost of cleaning up Sellafield is already expected to top £70bn! "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter" - yer right!!

[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?[/p][/quote]Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again.
The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.[/p][/quote]The cost of cleaning up Sellafield is already expected to top £70bn!
"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter" - yer right!!Franks Tank

boardsandphotos wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again. The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.

The cost of cleaning up Sellafield is already expected to top £70bn! "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter" - yer right!!

Score: 0

TheDistrict says...9:11am Mon 12 May 14

Other windfarms around our coasts are closer to the coast than 12 miles as in the case of the South Coast project. Reading the above report, it appears to me that the majority at this meeting were anti wind farm representatives, or Jurassic Nimbys. Its going to happen, now, or in the future. We need alternative energy, no one can deny that. So therefore, this anti wind farm regime is nothing but a NOT IN MY BACK YARD matter. Get use to it.

Other windfarms around our coasts are closer to the coast than 12 miles as in the case of the South Coast project. Reading the above report, it appears to me that the majority at this meeting were anti wind farm representatives, or Jurassic Nimbys. Its going to happen, now, or in the future. We need alternative energy, no one can deny that. So therefore, this anti wind farm regime is nothing but a NOT IN MY BACK YARD matter. Get use to it.TheDistrict

Other windfarms around our coasts are closer to the coast than 12 miles as in the case of the South Coast project. Reading the above report, it appears to me that the majority at this meeting were anti wind farm representatives, or Jurassic Nimbys. Its going to happen, now, or in the future. We need alternative energy, no one can deny that. So therefore, this anti wind farm regime is nothing but a NOT IN MY BACK YARD matter. Get use to it.

Score: 3

Ivy says...9:13am Mon 12 May 14

Perhaps those people that were so concerned about a 'Blot on the Landscape' would prefer gas & oil extraction on the coast. How many of them are aware that 3 current lincencs exist for oil/gas extraction for the coastal area from Poole to Highcliffe. The licences are owned by an Australian company that currently only works in the fracking industry. Start using your brains people, climate change will have a far greater negative effect on the coastline and ecology than the proposed turbines.

Perhaps those people that were so concerned about a 'Blot on the Landscape' would prefer gas & oil extraction on the coast. How many of them are aware that 3 current lincencs exist for oil/gas extraction for the coastal area from Poole to Highcliffe. The licences are owned by an Australian company that currently only works in the fracking industry.
Start using your brains people, climate change will have a far greater negative effect on the coastline and ecology than the proposed turbines.Ivy

Perhaps those people that were so concerned about a 'Blot on the Landscape' would prefer gas & oil extraction on the coast. How many of them are aware that 3 current lincencs exist for oil/gas extraction for the coastal area from Poole to Highcliffe. The licences are owned by an Australian company that currently only works in the fracking industry. Start using your brains people, climate change will have a far greater negative effect on the coastline and ecology than the proposed turbines.

Score: 1

Sir Retry69 says...9:18am Mon 12 May 14

"Too big,too close and in the wrong location" why? After three everyone,because it's IN MY BACK YARD :!

"Too big,too close and in the wrong location" why? After three everyone,because it's IN MY BACK YARD :!Sir Retry69

"Too big,too close and in the wrong location" why? After three everyone,because it's IN MY BACK YARD :!

Score: 2

TheDistrict says...9:23am Mon 12 May 14

'Too big, too close and in the wrong location', critics tell Navitus Bay wind farm meeting Too many letter Os in the second too. Should read: Too big to close............so get on with it and put it in place.

'Too big, too close and in the wrong location', critics tell Navitus Bay wind farm meeting
Too many letter Os in the second too. Should read:
Too big to close............so get on with it and put it in place.TheDistrict

'Too big, too close and in the wrong location', critics tell Navitus Bay wind farm meeting Too many letter Os in the second too. Should read: Too big to close............so get on with it and put it in place.

Score: -11

Anneaa says...9:33am Mon 12 May 14

I have never seen a better example of NIMBYism in all the years I have lived in Bournemouth. If residents in this area want to see more and more violent storms / floods etc then they are going the right way about it!!

I have never seen a better example of NIMBYism in all the years I have lived in Bournemouth. If residents in this area want to see more and more violent storms / floods etc then they are going the right way about it!!Anneaa

I have never seen a better example of NIMBYism in all the years I have lived in Bournemouth. If residents in this area want to see more and more violent storms / floods etc then they are going the right way about it!!

Score: 0

yet_another_one says...9:58am Mon 12 May 14

Mr Unsworth called on the audience to base their views on facts .... Quote from Roy Pointer who said: “We want to see this scheme confined to the dustbin of history.” He went onto say the project was “too big, too close and in the wrong location”. He criticised wind energy as expensive and said the turbines would be hazardous to birds and shipping in complete contrast to experts who had been consulted. Our local MP's are opposing the plans, fearing a potential backlash in the voting booths, despite the need for the generation of energy by renewable means which I'm sure they appreciate is necessary. Also, interested to see Richard Drax wasn't offering any comment particularly as he appeared to be in favour of a massive on-land solar farm, the size of 110 football pitches, at his Charborough Estate - a travesty that so much agricultural land would've been lost. At least the Navitus Bay installation is off-shore. All those who were objecting, citing personal preferences & not facts are declaring themselves nothing more than NIMBY's. In contrast to Mark Smith, I'm sure those involved with tourism could make the wind farm a positive attribute to the area, inviting holiday makers to come and see it for themselves citing benefits to the whole of the UK & the contribution being made by the area. We should be proud of this wind farm & the technological feat of what it will provide - it will be an awesome spectacular sight, totally majestic. Was Franks Tank aware there was a power station adjacent to the Twin Sails bridge in Poole, perhaps we should also consider building one on land that was occupied by the IMAX building.

Mr Unsworth called on the audience to base their views on facts ....
Quote from Roy Pointer who said: “We want to see this scheme confined to the dustbin of history.” He went onto say the project was “too big, too close and in the wrong location”. He criticised wind energy as expensive and said the turbines would be hazardous to birds and shipping in complete contrast to experts who had been consulted.
Our local MP's are opposing the plans, fearing a potential backlash in the voting booths, despite the need for the generation of energy by renewable means which I'm sure they appreciate is necessary. Also, interested to see Richard Drax wasn't offering any comment particularly as he appeared to be in favour of a massive on-land solar farm, the size of 110 football pitches, at his Charborough Estate - a travesty that so much agricultural land would've been lost. At least the Navitus Bay installation is off-shore.
All those who were objecting, citing personal preferences & not facts are declaring themselves nothing more than NIMBY's.
In contrast to Mark Smith, I'm sure those involved with tourism could make the wind farm a positive attribute to the area, inviting holiday makers to come and see it for themselves citing benefits to the whole of the UK & the contribution being made by the area. We should be proud of this wind farm & the technological feat of what it will provide - it will be an awesome spectacular sight, totally majestic.
Was Franks Tank aware there was a power station adjacent to the Twin Sails bridge in Poole, perhaps we should also consider building one on land that was occupied by the IMAX building.yet_another_one

Mr Unsworth called on the audience to base their views on facts .... Quote from Roy Pointer who said: “We want to see this scheme confined to the dustbin of history.” He went onto say the project was “too big, too close and in the wrong location”. He criticised wind energy as expensive and said the turbines would be hazardous to birds and shipping in complete contrast to experts who had been consulted. Our local MP's are opposing the plans, fearing a potential backlash in the voting booths, despite the need for the generation of energy by renewable means which I'm sure they appreciate is necessary. Also, interested to see Richard Drax wasn't offering any comment particularly as he appeared to be in favour of a massive on-land solar farm, the size of 110 football pitches, at his Charborough Estate - a travesty that so much agricultural land would've been lost. At least the Navitus Bay installation is off-shore. All those who were objecting, citing personal preferences & not facts are declaring themselves nothing more than NIMBY's. In contrast to Mark Smith, I'm sure those involved with tourism could make the wind farm a positive attribute to the area, inviting holiday makers to come and see it for themselves citing benefits to the whole of the UK & the contribution being made by the area. We should be proud of this wind farm & the technological feat of what it will provide - it will be an awesome spectacular sight, totally majestic. Was Franks Tank aware there was a power station adjacent to the Twin Sails bridge in Poole, perhaps we should also consider building one on land that was occupied by the IMAX building.

Score: -4

BarrHumbug says...10:08am Mon 12 May 14

So thats why Marks & Spencer's was quiet on Saturday?

So thats why Marks & Spencer's was quiet on Saturday?BarrHumbug

So thats why Marks & Spencer's was quiet on Saturday?

Score: 7

Flusters says...10:15am Mon 12 May 14

"Too big,too close and in the wrong location" why? After three everyone,because it's IN MY BACK YARD :! (Sir Retry 69) The French and Dutch (I understand) are trying to build this wind farm within a Global Heritage site or great environmental importance and iconic beauty. Lines are expected to be laid connecting out National Grid with Holland and France so the French and Dutch can import our power but not have to build wind farms off The Hague or St Tropez (I understand). The French don't allow fracking whereas we do (I understand) so NOT IN THEIR BACK YARD but in our most beautiful, iconic, hard-fought for, ecologically sensitive, stretch of water. With our membership of the EEC in question is it wise to give Navitus the go ahead?

"Too big,too close and in the wrong location" why? After three everyone,because it's IN MY BACK YARD :! (Sir Retry 69)
The French and Dutch (I understand) are trying to build this wind farm within a Global Heritage site or great environmental importance and iconic beauty.
Lines are expected to be laid connecting out National Grid with Holland and France so the French and Dutch can import our power but not have to build wind farms off The Hague or St Tropez (I understand).
The French don't allow fracking whereas we do (I understand) so NOT IN THEIR BACK YARD but in our most beautiful, iconic, hard-fought for, ecologically sensitive, stretch of water.
With our membership of the EEC in question is it wise to give Navitus the go ahead?Flusters

"Too big,too close and in the wrong location" why? After three everyone,because it's IN MY BACK YARD :! (Sir Retry 69) The French and Dutch (I understand) are trying to build this wind farm within a Global Heritage site or great environmental importance and iconic beauty. Lines are expected to be laid connecting out National Grid with Holland and France so the French and Dutch can import our power but not have to build wind farms off The Hague or St Tropez (I understand). The French don't allow fracking whereas we do (I understand) so NOT IN THEIR BACK YARD but in our most beautiful, iconic, hard-fought for, ecologically sensitive, stretch of water. With our membership of the EEC in question is it wise to give Navitus the go ahead?

Score: -2

a.g.o.g. says...10:16am Mon 12 May 14

Ignorance is bliss no`s 2-8 incl. and arrogance just a cover - but quite whether the majority will be happy with the upshot of electricity prices hiking up to our windy Euro pals levels and suffer the curse of a wind farm that will present inconvenience, danger, disruption. damage etc. to ALL in its near vicinity is something the Planning Authority must take into due and proper consideration. Sitting yesterday evening munching our fish and chippie supper along Swanage seafront for a change and looking out across the bay to Bournemouth seafront at about 30m high juxtaposed to the Ballard Down 100M high cliffs and which, a just 2 mile distant appears to be 8 times taller than the 8 mile distant Bournemouth general headland it is clear to me that a 200metre tall turbine stood on Bouremouth beach would appear to be aboout as tall as the Ballard cliff to the Swanage observer and which, relatively, would mean that the Navitus turbines will look to be about half the height of Ballard cliffs as seen from Swanage and which is much larger than even No to Nav webpage shows likely.............. .......work it out!

Ignorance is bliss no`s 2-8 incl. and arrogance just a cover - but quite whether the majority will be happy with the upshot of electricity prices hiking up to our windy Euro pals levels and suffer the curse of a wind farm that will present inconvenience, danger, disruption. damage etc. to ALL in its near vicinity is something the Planning Authority must take into due and proper consideration.
Sitting yesterday evening munching our fish and chippie supper along Swanage seafront for a change and looking out across the bay to Bournemouth seafront at about 30m high juxtaposed to the Ballard Down 100M high cliffs and which, a just 2 mile distant appears to be 8 times taller than the 8 mile distant Bournemouth general headland it is clear to me that a 200metre tall turbine stood on Bouremouth beach would appear to be aboout as tall as the Ballard cliff to the Swanage observer and which, relatively, would mean that the Navitus turbines will look to be about half the height of Ballard cliffs as seen from Swanage and which is much larger than even No to Nav webpage shows likely..............
.......work it out!a.g.o.g.

Ignorance is bliss no`s 2-8 incl. and arrogance just a cover - but quite whether the majority will be happy with the upshot of electricity prices hiking up to our windy Euro pals levels and suffer the curse of a wind farm that will present inconvenience, danger, disruption. damage etc. to ALL in its near vicinity is something the Planning Authority must take into due and proper consideration. Sitting yesterday evening munching our fish and chippie supper along Swanage seafront for a change and looking out across the bay to Bournemouth seafront at about 30m high juxtaposed to the Ballard Down 100M high cliffs and which, a just 2 mile distant appears to be 8 times taller than the 8 mile distant Bournemouth general headland it is clear to me that a 200metre tall turbine stood on Bouremouth beach would appear to be aboout as tall as the Ballard cliff to the Swanage observer and which, relatively, would mean that the Navitus turbines will look to be about half the height of Ballard cliffs as seen from Swanage and which is much larger than even No to Nav webpage shows likely.............. .......work it out!

Score: 8

BarrHumbug says...10:26am Mon 12 May 14

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Why does no one ask the simple question:
If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?BarrHumbug

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Score: 6

speedy231278 says...10:28am Mon 12 May 14

All wind farms do is move the pollution from the generation stage to the construction stage. The generation may be clean, but making the magnets in the generators and the extra effort required to build these things offshore most certainly isn't. Then there's the fact that if the wind is too weak or too strong you cannot generate, and the relatively short life of the turbines in comparison to other methods of generation. Fossil fuelled generating stations are far cleaner than they ever used to be, so it would be interesting to compare the overall carbon footprint of this proposed windfarm against building a new conventional power station.

All wind farms do is move the pollution from the generation stage to the construction stage. The generation may be clean, but making the magnets in the generators and the extra effort required to build these things offshore most certainly isn't. Then there's the fact that if the wind is too weak or too strong you cannot generate, and the relatively short life of the turbines in comparison to other methods of generation. Fossil fuelled generating stations are far cleaner than they ever used to be, so it would be interesting to compare the overall carbon footprint of this proposed windfarm against building a new conventional power station.speedy231278

All wind farms do is move the pollution from the generation stage to the construction stage. The generation may be clean, but making the magnets in the generators and the extra effort required to build these things offshore most certainly isn't. Then there's the fact that if the wind is too weak or too strong you cannot generate, and the relatively short life of the turbines in comparison to other methods of generation. Fossil fuelled generating stations are far cleaner than they ever used to be, so it would be interesting to compare the overall carbon footprint of this proposed windfarm against building a new conventional power station.

Score: 12

mooninpisces says...10:45am Mon 12 May 14

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
Why does no one ask the simple question:
If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?[/p][/quote]Many have asked that simple question.
The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.mooninpisces

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

Score: 2

TheDistrict says...11:05am Mon 12 May 14

None of the anti wind farm above have any justifiable reason as to not wanting the windfarm other than to satisfy their own needs of saving the environment. My question then is this, is a windfarm not saving the environment. Of course it is, it will help more than other fuel energies. I look forward to it and its positive projection.

None of the anti wind farm above have any justifiable reason as to not wanting the windfarm other than to satisfy their own needs of saving the environment. My question then is this, is a windfarm not saving the environment. Of course it is, it will help more than other fuel energies.
I look forward to it and its positive projection.TheDistrict

None of the anti wind farm above have any justifiable reason as to not wanting the windfarm other than to satisfy their own needs of saving the environment. My question then is this, is a windfarm not saving the environment. Of course it is, it will help more than other fuel energies. I look forward to it and its positive projection.

Score: -9

nobodyexpectedthat says...11:22am Mon 12 May 14

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this? Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views. There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this?
Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views.
There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.nobodyexpectedthat

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this? Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views. There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.

Score: 0

speedy231278 says...11:30am Mon 12 May 14

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Because the answer to the question, plus the filth created during the production of rare earth magnets for the turbines completely outweighs the 'greenness' of the actual production?

[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
Why does no one ask the simple question:
If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?[/p][/quote]Because the answer to the question, plus the filth created during the production of rare earth magnets for the turbines completely outweighs the 'greenness' of the actual production?speedy231278

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Because the answer to the question, plus the filth created during the production of rare earth magnets for the turbines completely outweighs the 'greenness' of the actual production?

Score: 3

speedy231278 says...11:33am Mon 12 May 14

mooninpisces wrote…

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive. The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!

[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
Why does no one ask the simple question:
If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?[/p][/quote]Many have asked that simple question.
The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.[/p][/quote]The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive.
The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!speedy231278

mooninpisces wrote…

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive. The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!

Score: 9

speedy231278 says...11:35am Mon 12 May 14

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries! http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/aug/07/china-rar e-earth-village-poll ution

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries!
http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
012/aug/07/china-rar
e-earth-village-poll
utionspeedy231278

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries! http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/aug/07/china-rar e-earth-village-poll ution

Score: 9

mooninpisces says...12:13pm Mon 12 May 14

nobodyexpectedthat wrote…

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this? Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views. There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.

The Echo is even more biassed in its coverage. The video clips give more than 4 times the amount of time to opponents (5 minutes) as to supporters (I minute 12 seconds).

[quote][p][bold]nobodyexpectedthat[/bold] wrote:
Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this?
Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views.
There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.[/p][/quote]The Echo is even more biassed in its coverage. The video clips give more than 4 times the amount of time to opponents (5 minutes) as to supporters (I minute 12 seconds).mooninpisces

nobodyexpectedthat wrote…

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this? Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views. There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.

The Echo is even more biassed in its coverage. The video clips give more than 4 times the amount of time to opponents (5 minutes) as to supporters (I minute 12 seconds).

Score: -1

speedy231278 says...12:18pm Mon 12 May 14

nobodyexpectedthat wrote…

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this? Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views. There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.

Perhaps four times as many people oppose the idea?

[quote][p][bold]nobodyexpectedthat[/bold] wrote:
Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this?
Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views.
There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.[/p][/quote]Perhaps four times as many people oppose the idea?speedy231278

nobodyexpectedthat wrote…

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this? Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views. There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.

Perhaps four times as many people oppose the idea?

Score: 4

Ebb Tide says...12:42pm Mon 12 May 14

speedy231278 wrote…

mooninpisces wrote…

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive. The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!

Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain !

[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
Why does no one ask the simple question:
If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?[/p][/quote]Many have asked that simple question.
The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.[/p][/quote]The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive.
The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful![/p][/quote]Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain !Ebb Tide

speedy231278 wrote…

mooninpisces wrote…

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive. The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!

Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain !

Score: 3

Ebb Tide says...1:02pm Mon 12 May 14

nobodyexpectedthat wrote…

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this? Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views. There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.

It will be fascinating to see how the other affected Local Authorities deal with the interests of their electorate on this issue. Poole, for instance, has split its public engagement responsibilities over so many Councillors that co-ordination should prove entertaining. Swanage, being so small, should not be disregarded since much of its tranquillity (attractiveness as a holiday resort) on the cliff tops is derived from a natural seascape as well as the landscape. Christchurch and the Isle of Wight are also probably offended by this latest example of the panic-stricken Treasury attempts to exploit its 85% ownership of Crown Estate income - irrespective of the other issues that are being so cogently stated by so many interested in a credible energy policy that will allow the UK to compete in the global market.

[quote][p][bold]nobodyexpectedthat[/bold] wrote:
Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this?
Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views.
There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.[/p][/quote]It will be fascinating to see how the other affected Local Authorities deal with the interests of their electorate on this issue.
Poole, for instance, has split its public engagement responsibilities over so many Councillors that co-ordination should prove entertaining. Swanage, being so small, should not be disregarded since much of its tranquillity (attractiveness as a holiday resort) on the cliff tops is derived from a natural seascape as well as the landscape. Christchurch and the Isle of Wight are also probably offended by this latest example of the panic-stricken Treasury attempts to exploit its 85% ownership of Crown Estate income - irrespective of the other issues that are being so cogently stated by so many interested in a credible energy policy that will allow the UK to compete in the global market.Ebb Tide

nobodyexpectedthat wrote…

Having attended the meeting and listened carefully expecting to be informed, I I find it disturbing that the organisers allowed almost 4 times as many speakers against as they did for. Why was this? Many anti wind farm speakers and commentators presented very little, if any facts, but expressed their opinions and views. There is nothing wrong with residents expressing their views & opinions, but come on Bournemouth Borough Council, if you are going to have a public debate then don't make it so blatantly one sided - make it fair, reasonable and democratic.

It will be fascinating to see how the other affected Local Authorities deal with the interests of their electorate on this issue. Poole, for instance, has split its public engagement responsibilities over so many Councillors that co-ordination should prove entertaining. Swanage, being so small, should not be disregarded since much of its tranquillity (attractiveness as a holiday resort) on the cliff tops is derived from a natural seascape as well as the landscape. Christchurch and the Isle of Wight are also probably offended by this latest example of the panic-stricken Treasury attempts to exploit its 85% ownership of Crown Estate income - irrespective of the other issues that are being so cogently stated by so many interested in a credible energy policy that will allow the UK to compete in the global market.

Score: 4

mooninpisces says...1:03pm Mon 12 May 14

Ebb Tide wrote…

speedy231278 wrote…

mooninpisces wrote…

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive. The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!

Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain !

Ebb Tide - the guaranteed price under the Contracts for Difference that would apply for Navitus IS a ceiling price - the generators have to pay back when the market price of electricity exceeds the guaranteed price. And the price is only guaranteed for 15 years (35 years for nuclear).

[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
Why does no one ask the simple question:
If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?[/p][/quote]Many have asked that simple question.
The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.[/p][/quote]The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive.
The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful![/p][/quote]Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain ![/p][/quote]Ebb Tide - the guaranteed price under the Contracts for Difference that would apply for Navitus IS a ceiling price - the generators have to pay back when the market price of electricity exceeds the guaranteed price. And the price is only guaranteed for 15 years (35 years for nuclear).mooninpisces

Ebb Tide wrote…

speedy231278 wrote…

mooninpisces wrote…

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive. The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!

Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain !

Ebb Tide - the guaranteed price under the Contracts for Difference that would apply for Navitus IS a ceiling price - the generators have to pay back when the market price of electricity exceeds the guaranteed price. And the price is only guaranteed for 15 years (35 years for nuclear).

Score: 2

A N Archist says...1:04pm Mon 12 May 14

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are. No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future. This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones. The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are. I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England. Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years. Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield. Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash. "Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset. "We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide. "Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table. "We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost. "Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest. Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are.
No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future.
This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones.
The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are.
I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England.
Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years.
Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield.
Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash.
"Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset.
"We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide.
"Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table.
"We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost.
"Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest.
Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.A N Archist

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are. No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future. This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones. The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are. I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England. Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years. Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield. Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash. "Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset. "We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide. "Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table. "We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost. "Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest. Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.

Score: 1

fedupwithjobsworths says...1:07pm Mon 12 May 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

No .... build two reactors at Winfrith and get on with fracking. Eco terrorists cannot be allowed to destroy the economic future of our country

[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?[/p][/quote]No .... build two reactors at Winfrith and get on with fracking. Eco terrorists cannot be allowed to destroy the economic future of our countryfedupwithjobsworths

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

No .... build two reactors at Winfrith and get on with fracking. Eco terrorists cannot be allowed to destroy the economic future of our country

Score: 3

Ebb Tide says...1:10pm Mon 12 May 14

Franks Tank wrote…

boardsandphotos wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again. The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.

The cost of cleaning up Sellafield is already expected to top £70bn! "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter" - yer right!!

One way of cleaning up the older reactors would be to use the spent fuel in a revised form of reactor. This approach needs to be accelerated because we have collected a lot of relevant material from across the world. Use it !

[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?[/p][/quote]Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again.
The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.[/p][/quote]The cost of cleaning up Sellafield is already expected to top £70bn!
"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter" - yer right!![/p][/quote]One way of cleaning up the older reactors would be to use the spent fuel in a revised form of reactor. This approach needs to be accelerated because we have collected a lot of relevant material from across the world. Use it !Ebb Tide

Franks Tank wrote…

boardsandphotos wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reactor at Winfrith instead?

Well given that Winfrith closed in 1995 and is 15 years into a 25 decommissioning project, talk of a new reactor now would mean potentially waiting a good 5-10 years before it was up and running again. The new Nuclear power station at Hinkley is going to take 10 years to build from scatch, even that will only be able to provide us with 50 years of power.

The cost of cleaning up Sellafield is already expected to top £70bn! "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter" - yer right!!

One way of cleaning up the older reactors would be to use the spent fuel in a revised form of reactor. This approach needs to be accelerated because we have collected a lot of relevant material from across the world. Use it !

Score: 4

Ophilum says...1:26pm Mon 12 May 14

Ivy wrote…

Perhaps those people that were so concerned about a 'Blot on the Landscape' would prefer gas & oil extraction on the coast. How many of them are aware that 3 current lincencs exist for oil/gas extraction for the coastal area from Poole to Highcliffe. The licences are owned by an Australian company that currently only works in the fracking industry. Start using your brains people, climate change will have a far greater negative effect on the coastline and ecology than the proposed turbines.

What a lot of codswallop about global warming i haven't seen any yet so where have you seen it, oh we are all going to be washed away by 10mm of sea change in the next 100 years that is why they are all building palaces to greed at sandbanks so they can get washed away i haven't seen any difference in the last 50years we are not growing things like oranges or lemons etc the only lemons are the lefty greens and their propaganda get real.. Yes to wind farms as long as the builders of them pay for them without subsidy by the tax payers pay for it if you want to.... not me.

[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote:
Perhaps those people that were so concerned about a 'Blot on the Landscape' would prefer gas & oil extraction on the coast. How many of them are aware that 3 current lincencs exist for oil/gas extraction for the coastal area from Poole to Highcliffe. The licences are owned by an Australian company that currently only works in the fracking industry.
Start using your brains people, climate change will have a far greater negative effect on the coastline and ecology than the proposed turbines.[/p][/quote]What a lot of codswallop about global warming i haven't seen any yet so where have you seen it, oh we are all going to be washed away by 10mm of sea change in the next 100 years that is why they are all building palaces to greed at sandbanks so they can get washed away i haven't seen any difference in the last 50years we are not growing things like oranges or lemons etc the only lemons are the lefty greens and their propaganda get real.. Yes to wind farms as long as the builders of them pay for them without subsidy by the tax payers pay for it if you want to.... not me.Ophilum

Ivy wrote…

Perhaps those people that were so concerned about a 'Blot on the Landscape' would prefer gas & oil extraction on the coast. How many of them are aware that 3 current lincencs exist for oil/gas extraction for the coastal area from Poole to Highcliffe. The licences are owned by an Australian company that currently only works in the fracking industry. Start using your brains people, climate change will have a far greater negative effect on the coastline and ecology than the proposed turbines.

What a lot of codswallop about global warming i haven't seen any yet so where have you seen it, oh we are all going to be washed away by 10mm of sea change in the next 100 years that is why they are all building palaces to greed at sandbanks so they can get washed away i haven't seen any difference in the last 50years we are not growing things like oranges or lemons etc the only lemons are the lefty greens and their propaganda get real.. Yes to wind farms as long as the builders of them pay for them without subsidy by the tax payers pay for it if you want to.... not me.

Score: 0

A N Archist says...1:27pm Mon 12 May 14

@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back. Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here). Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.

@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back.
Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here).
Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.A N Archist

@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back. Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here). Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.

Score: 4

A N Archist says...1:30pm Mon 12 May 14

@Ophilium. You on the IPCC panel?? you a qualified and experienced climatologist??? Bet not. Subjective ad-hominem crud as usual from the knuckle scrapers.

@Ophilium. You on the IPCC panel?? you a qualified and experienced climatologist??? Bet not. Subjective ad-hominem crud as usual from the knuckle scrapers.A N Archist

@Ophilium. You on the IPCC panel?? you a qualified and experienced climatologist??? Bet not. Subjective ad-hominem crud as usual from the knuckle scrapers.

Score: -3

snowy123 says...1:30pm Mon 12 May 14

speedy231278 wrote…

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries! http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/aug/07/china-rar e-earth-village-poll ution

Can't wait for Mooninpisces comment on this !!! But perhaps as it is not her children that are being poisoned, it's not important. It is a different continent after all. This Nimby thing applies to both sides of the green argument. As long as the western world can feel smug about its carbon credentials then sod everyone else !

[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote:
Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries!
http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
012/aug/07/china-rar
e-earth-village-poll
ution[/p][/quote]Can't wait for Mooninpisces comment on this !!!
But perhaps as it is not her children that are being poisoned, it's not important. It is a different continent after all.
This Nimby thing applies to both sides of the green argument. As long as the western world can feel smug about its carbon credentials then sod everyone else !snowy123

speedy231278 wrote…

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries! http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/aug/07/china-rar e-earth-village-poll ution

Can't wait for Mooninpisces comment on this !!! But perhaps as it is not her children that are being poisoned, it's not important. It is a different continent after all. This Nimby thing applies to both sides of the green argument. As long as the western world can feel smug about its carbon credentials then sod everyone else !

Score: 4

Ophilum says...1:34pm Mon 12 May 14

TheDistrict wrote…

None of the anti wind farm above have any justifiable reason as to not wanting the windfarm other than to satisfy their own needs of saving the environment. My question then is this, is a windfarm not saving the environment. Of course it is, it will help more than other fuel energies. I look forward to it and its positive projection.

What a ridiculous thing to say they transfer wealth to the rich and make the poor pay through electricity charges enforced by the Lefty GREENS, Vote UKIP

[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote:
None of the anti wind farm above have any justifiable reason as to not wanting the windfarm other than to satisfy their own needs of saving the environment. My question then is this, is a windfarm not saving the environment. Of course it is, it will help more than other fuel energies.
I look forward to it and its positive projection.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous thing to say they transfer wealth to the rich and make the poor pay through electricity charges enforced by the Lefty GREENS, Vote UKIPOphilum

TheDistrict wrote…

None of the anti wind farm above have any justifiable reason as to not wanting the windfarm other than to satisfy their own needs of saving the environment. My question then is this, is a windfarm not saving the environment. Of course it is, it will help more than other fuel energies. I look forward to it and its positive projection.

What a ridiculous thing to say they transfer wealth to the rich and make the poor pay through electricity charges enforced by the Lefty GREENS, Vote UKIP

Score: 2

Ophilum says...1:36pm Mon 12 May 14

A N Archist wrote…

@Ophilium. You on the IPCC panel?? you a qualified and experienced climatologist??? Bet not. Subjective ad-hominem crud as usual from the knuckle scrapers.

You can always tell a lefty as they soon result to abuse as they know that they are talking utter Rubbish.

[quote][p][bold]A N Archist[/bold] wrote:
@Ophilium. You on the IPCC panel?? you a qualified and experienced climatologist??? Bet not. Subjective ad-hominem crud as usual from the knuckle scrapers.[/p][/quote]You can always tell a lefty as they soon result to abuse as they know that they are talking utter Rubbish.Ophilum

A N Archist wrote…

@Ophilium. You on the IPCC panel?? you a qualified and experienced climatologist??? Bet not. Subjective ad-hominem crud as usual from the knuckle scrapers.

You can always tell a lefty as they soon result to abuse as they know that they are talking utter Rubbish.

Score: 2

Ebb Tide says...2:04pm Mon 12 May 14

A N Archist wrote…

@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back. Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here). Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.

It is good to know that you think you know what was being referred to but it has been claimed that if all the nuclear waste in existence was reused it could the planet's power needs for 72 years. One step along that route could involve the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt (WAMS) reactor. Such steps seem worth taking particularly if, as is proposed, radical changes in nuclear reactors could allow construction of small (container sized) nuclear batteries within a decade or so. Safer fission rather than the holy grail of fusion. Why waste the nuclear fuel that we have ? It is said that 95% of the radioactivity remains (after being used within a conventional reactor) and therefore it should be used, not stored until it has dissipated. We have to invest in storage so why not invest in trying to reduce the storage liability and gain something in the process ? "Waste not, want not" seems a credible prompt from our traditions.

[quote][p][bold]A N Archist[/bold] wrote:
@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back.
Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here).
Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.[/p][/quote]It is good to know that you think you know what was being referred to but it has been claimed that if all the nuclear waste in existence was reused it could the planet's power needs for 72 years.
One step along that route could involve the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt (WAMS) reactor. Such steps seem worth taking particularly if, as is proposed, radical changes in nuclear reactors could allow construction of small (container sized) nuclear batteries within a decade or so. Safer fission rather than the holy grail of fusion.
Why waste the nuclear fuel that we have ? It is said that 95% of the radioactivity remains (after being used within a conventional reactor) and therefore it should be used, not stored until it has dissipated. We have to invest in storage so why not invest in trying to reduce the storage liability and gain something in the process ?
"Waste not, want not" seems a credible prompt from our traditions.Ebb Tide

A N Archist wrote…

@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back. Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here). Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.

It is good to know that you think you know what was being referred to but it has been claimed that if all the nuclear waste in existence was reused it could the planet's power needs for 72 years. One step along that route could involve the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt (WAMS) reactor. Such steps seem worth taking particularly if, as is proposed, radical changes in nuclear reactors could allow construction of small (container sized) nuclear batteries within a decade or so. Safer fission rather than the holy grail of fusion. Why waste the nuclear fuel that we have ? It is said that 95% of the radioactivity remains (after being used within a conventional reactor) and therefore it should be used, not stored until it has dissipated. We have to invest in storage so why not invest in trying to reduce the storage liability and gain something in the process ? "Waste not, want not" seems a credible prompt from our traditions.

Score: 7

Ebb Tide says...2:14pm Mon 12 May 14

mooninpisces wrote…

Ebb Tide wrote…

speedy231278 wrote…

mooninpisces wrote…

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive. The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!

Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain !

Ebb Tide - the guaranteed price under the Contracts for Difference that would apply for Navitus IS a ceiling price - the generators have to pay back when the market price of electricity exceeds the guaranteed price. And the price is only guaranteed for 15 years (35 years for nuclear).

Thanks again ! Only 15 years to service a guarantee. Could be worse but bad enough.

[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
Why does no one ask the simple question:
If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?[/p][/quote]Many have asked that simple question.
The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.[/p][/quote]The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive.
The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful![/p][/quote]Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain ![/p][/quote]Ebb Tide - the guaranteed price under the Contracts for Difference that would apply for Navitus IS a ceiling price - the generators have to pay back when the market price of electricity exceeds the guaranteed price. And the price is only guaranteed for 15 years (35 years for nuclear).[/p][/quote]Thanks again ! Only 15 years to service a guarantee. Could be worse but bad enough.Ebb Tide

mooninpisces wrote…

Ebb Tide wrote…

speedy231278 wrote…

mooninpisces wrote…

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Many have asked that simple question. The answer is also simple. The subsidies are needed because renewable energy has to compete with established fossil fuel energy sources that do not have to pay the social costs of the CO2 they emit and the pollution they cause. (They're also needed for nuclear, and for the same reason). And in the case of renewables, a boost now helps bring about the scale that will reduce costs in the future.

The subsidies are needed because it is utterly unreliable, inefficient, and costs far more to maintain! The idea that it is actually any better for the environment is also pretty naive. The way to reduce the impact on the environment from energy generation is incredibly simple. Use less energy, make energy transmission more efficient, and encourage people to be less wasteful!

Not forgetting Carbon Capture and Storage ! The principle that the polluter removes the pollution (or prevents it !) seems entirely relevant. If that needs subsidies to get it started then it would be more sensible than guaranteeing 'floor prices' for new technology that are at such an uneconomic level : nearly six times that of Germany. The guarantee is for a floor level not a ceiling level : a one-sided bargain !

Ebb Tide - the guaranteed price under the Contracts for Difference that would apply for Navitus IS a ceiling price - the generators have to pay back when the market price of electricity exceeds the guaranteed price. And the price is only guaranteed for 15 years (35 years for nuclear).

Thanks again ! Only 15 years to service a guarantee. Could be worse but bad enough.

Score: 2

palexgo says...2:18pm Mon 12 May 14

IT IS STUPID TO HAVE WIND TURBINES! THE NAVITUS BAY WILL COST £4,000,000,000! A WATER TURBINE SYSTEM WHICH PRODUCES THE SAME AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY WOULD ONLY COST AROUND £50,000,000!

IT IS STUPID TO HAVE WIND TURBINES! THE NAVITUS BAY WILL COST £4,000,000,000! A WATER TURBINE SYSTEM WHICH PRODUCES THE SAME AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY WOULD ONLY COST AROUND £50,000,000!palexgo

IT IS STUPID TO HAVE WIND TURBINES! THE NAVITUS BAY WILL COST £4,000,000,000! A WATER TURBINE SYSTEM WHICH PRODUCES THE SAME AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY WOULD ONLY COST AROUND £50,000,000!

Score: 0

Franks Tank says...2:18pm Mon 12 May 14

Ebb Tide wrote…

A N Archist wrote…

@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back. Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here). Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.

It is good to know that you think you know what was being referred to but it has been claimed that if all the nuclear waste in existence was reused it could the planet's power needs for 72 years. One step along that route could involve the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt (WAMS) reactor. Such steps seem worth taking particularly if, as is proposed, radical changes in nuclear reactors could allow construction of small (container sized) nuclear batteries within a decade or so. Safer fission rather than the holy grail of fusion. Why waste the nuclear fuel that we have ? It is said that 95% of the radioactivity remains (after being used within a conventional reactor) and therefore it should be used, not stored until it has dissipated. We have to invest in storage so why not invest in trying to reduce the storage liability and gain something in the process ? "Waste not, want not" seems a credible prompt from our traditions.

Finland is currently digging a long term nuclear waste repository under a mountain. It has a design life of 100 thousand years.! Bear in mind the last ice age was only around 11,000 years ago. When it's full they don't know whether to put up warning signs or cover it over and hope that history eventually forgets it's actually there because sooner or later some idiot will, inevitably, try to have a look.

[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A N Archist[/bold] wrote:
@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back.
Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here).
Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.[/p][/quote]It is good to know that you think you know what was being referred to but it has been claimed that if all the nuclear waste in existence was reused it could the planet's power needs for 72 years.
One step along that route could involve the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt (WAMS) reactor. Such steps seem worth taking particularly if, as is proposed, radical changes in nuclear reactors could allow construction of small (container sized) nuclear batteries within a decade or so. Safer fission rather than the holy grail of fusion.
Why waste the nuclear fuel that we have ? It is said that 95% of the radioactivity remains (after being used within a conventional reactor) and therefore it should be used, not stored until it has dissipated. We have to invest in storage so why not invest in trying to reduce the storage liability and gain something in the process ?
"Waste not, want not" seems a credible prompt from our traditions.[/p][/quote]Finland is currently digging a long term nuclear waste repository under a mountain.
It has a design life of 100 thousand years.!
Bear in mind the last ice age was only around 11,000 years ago.
When it's full they don't know whether to put up warning signs or cover it over and hope that history eventually forgets it's actually there because sooner or later some idiot will, inevitably, try to have a look.Franks Tank

Ebb Tide wrote…

A N Archist wrote…

@Ebb tide. Scientists have been playing with this one for years and got nowhere. What you are referring to is nuclear fusion where reactors feed on their own waste. Dounreay in Scotland was where this experimentation took place and was closed some years back. Flawed for a number of reasons. Fusions is the way the Sun works (the star not the newspaper - I make this comment because of the average IQ of muppets on here). Not in the establishments interests to get fusion working. The reason? Why have a nice efficient clean nuclear power station producing endless cheap 'too cheap to meter' energy when you can use the waste to make nice big juicy bombs to end civilization anytime you want.

It is good to know that you think you know what was being referred to but it has been claimed that if all the nuclear waste in existence was reused it could the planet's power needs for 72 years. One step along that route could involve the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt (WAMS) reactor. Such steps seem worth taking particularly if, as is proposed, radical changes in nuclear reactors could allow construction of small (container sized) nuclear batteries within a decade or so. Safer fission rather than the holy grail of fusion. Why waste the nuclear fuel that we have ? It is said that 95% of the radioactivity remains (after being used within a conventional reactor) and therefore it should be used, not stored until it has dissipated. We have to invest in storage so why not invest in trying to reduce the storage liability and gain something in the process ? "Waste not, want not" seems a credible prompt from our traditions.

Finland is currently digging a long term nuclear waste repository under a mountain. It has a design life of 100 thousand years.! Bear in mind the last ice age was only around 11,000 years ago. When it's full they don't know whether to put up warning signs or cover it over and hope that history eventually forgets it's actually there because sooner or later some idiot will, inevitably, try to have a look.

Score: 3

Glashen says...2:26pm Mon 12 May 14

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Good point and I suspect the reason it is not being sited further off shore where it would have little or no visual impact on us is that even with those large subsidies it would be uneconomic or at least the profits not large enough to make it worthwhile. That is my worry oil and gas extracts don't need subsidies and can afford the cost of environmental mitigation, gas also reduces the carbon put into the atmosphere. So why pursue this wind fantasy it wouldn't be just to look green would it?

[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
Why does no one ask the simple question:
If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?[/p][/quote]Good point and I suspect the reason it is not being sited further off shore where it would have little or no visual impact on us is that even with those large subsidies it would be uneconomic or at least the profits not large enough to make it worthwhile. That is my worry oil and gas extracts don't need subsidies and can afford the cost of environmental mitigation, gas also reduces the carbon put into the atmosphere. So why pursue this wind fantasy it wouldn't be just to look green would it?Glashen

BarrHumbug wrote…

Why does no one ask the simple question: If wind and solar energy is so great then why do we have to subsidise its construction and every watt it produces during its lifetime?

Good point and I suspect the reason it is not being sited further off shore where it would have little or no visual impact on us is that even with those large subsidies it would be uneconomic or at least the profits not large enough to make it worthwhile. That is my worry oil and gas extracts don't need subsidies and can afford the cost of environmental mitigation, gas also reduces the carbon put into the atmosphere. So why pursue this wind fantasy it wouldn't be just to look green would it?

Score: 1

BmthNewshound says...3:04pm Mon 12 May 14

Another one sided and biased article from the Echo. The objectors to Navitus are not representative of the wider local population and are a loud but very small minority. , I'm sure the Planning Inspector is used to local politicians hot air and scaremongering and realise that rather than objecting to Navitus Tory politicians Burns, Ellwood and Beesley are campaigning to secure votes in next years elections knowing full well that Jurassic Dorset is prime UKIP country.

Another one sided and biased article from the Echo. The objectors to Navitus are not representative of the wider local population and are a loud but very small minority.
,
I'm sure the Planning Inspector is used to local politicians hot air and scaremongering and realise that rather than objecting to Navitus Tory politicians Burns, Ellwood and Beesley are campaigning to secure votes in next years elections knowing full well that Jurassic Dorset is prime UKIP country.BmthNewshound

Another one sided and biased article from the Echo. The objectors to Navitus are not representative of the wider local population and are a loud but very small minority. , I'm sure the Planning Inspector is used to local politicians hot air and scaremongering and realise that rather than objecting to Navitus Tory politicians Burns, Ellwood and Beesley are campaigning to secure votes in next years elections knowing full well that Jurassic Dorset is prime UKIP country.

Score: -1

MeenyMiny says...3:13pm Mon 12 May 14

It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting. Comments clearly show that many people are for the wind farm as have independent surveys. By the same token, knowing from independent surveys that younger people are much more in favour of the wind farm, was this meeting adequately advertised by the council in the local colleges, clubs etc. frequented by the young? It is, after all, their future we are talking about. As is normal, objectors make far more noise that those who are happy about a development but objectors' comments that are blatantly misleading remained uncorrected e.g. felling of over 3,500 oak trees is a gross overestimation; the cable route will not remain "totally denuded" as all but trees with the biggest roots will be allowed to cover the route when construction of each length is completed. Mr Burns is definitely looking through blinkered eyes to compare Bournemouth with Barcelona as I see none of the wonderful architecture in Bournemouth that makes Barcelona such a beautiful wonder. Most importantly, however, how these objectors can leave such a legacy to future generations as, even the possibility of, the effects of climate change just because there are some things they think they won't like about efforts to prevent it is incredibly selfish and immoral. I guess they think that they won't be here to see it so just don't care.

It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting. Comments clearly show that many people are for the wind farm as have independent surveys.
By the same token, knowing from independent surveys that younger people are much more in favour of the wind farm, was this meeting adequately advertised by the council in the local colleges, clubs etc. frequented by the young? It is, after all, their future we are talking about.
As is normal, objectors make far more noise that those who are happy about a development but objectors' comments that are blatantly misleading remained uncorrected e.g. felling of over 3,500 oak trees is a gross overestimation; the cable route will not remain "totally denuded" as all but trees with the biggest roots will be allowed to cover the route when construction of each length is completed.
Mr Burns is definitely looking through blinkered eyes to compare Bournemouth with Barcelona as I see none of the wonderful architecture in Bournemouth that makes Barcelona such a beautiful wonder.
Most importantly, however, how these objectors can leave such a legacy to future generations as, even the possibility of, the effects of climate change just because there are some things they think they won't like about efforts to prevent it is incredibly selfish and immoral. I guess they think that they won't be here to see it so just don't care.MeenyMiny

It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting. Comments clearly show that many people are for the wind farm as have independent surveys. By the same token, knowing from independent surveys that younger people are much more in favour of the wind farm, was this meeting adequately advertised by the council in the local colleges, clubs etc. frequented by the young? It is, after all, their future we are talking about. As is normal, objectors make far more noise that those who are happy about a development but objectors' comments that are blatantly misleading remained uncorrected e.g. felling of over 3,500 oak trees is a gross overestimation; the cable route will not remain "totally denuded" as all but trees with the biggest roots will be allowed to cover the route when construction of each length is completed. Mr Burns is definitely looking through blinkered eyes to compare Bournemouth with Barcelona as I see none of the wonderful architecture in Bournemouth that makes Barcelona such a beautiful wonder. Most importantly, however, how these objectors can leave such a legacy to future generations as, even the possibility of, the effects of climate change just because there are some things they think they won't like about efforts to prevent it is incredibly selfish and immoral. I guess they think that they won't be here to see it so just don't care.

Score: -6

Ophilum says...3:20pm Mon 12 May 14

BmthNewshound wrote…

Another one sided and biased article from the Echo. The objectors to Navitus are not representative of the wider local population and are a loud but very small minority. , I'm sure the Planning Inspector is used to local politicians hot air and scaremongering and realise that rather than objecting to Navitus Tory politicians Burns, Ellwood and Beesley are campaigning to secure votes in next years elections knowing full well that Jurassic Dorset is prime UKIP country.

So the ECHO is biased then and the people with a OPINION are a small minority and not representative.... Not so fast if the UKIP vote is anything to go by you are WRONG, But you would say that it is a minority and does not compute with my lefty point of View so it must be the view of only a few, what a one sided View. Look if it is so good and the wonderful end to all our worries "cheep as chips" power as far as electricity is concerned let them put up or shut up and pay for it without a subsidy NONE at all, Snow in Summer. Dream ON. Vote UKIP

[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote:
Another one sided and biased article from the Echo. The objectors to Navitus are not representative of the wider local population and are a loud but very small minority.
,
I'm sure the Planning Inspector is used to local politicians hot air and scaremongering and realise that rather than objecting to Navitus Tory politicians Burns, Ellwood and Beesley are campaigning to secure votes in next years elections knowing full well that Jurassic Dorset is prime UKIP country.[/p][/quote]So the ECHO is biased then and the people with a OPINION are a small minority and not representative.... Not so fast if the UKIP vote is anything to go by you are WRONG, But you would say that it is a minority and does not compute with my lefty point of View so it must be the view of only a few, what a one sided View. Look if it is so good and the wonderful end to all our worries "cheep as chips" power as far as electricity is concerned let them put up or shut up and pay for it without a subsidy NONE at all, Snow in Summer. Dream ON.
Vote UKIPOphilum

BmthNewshound wrote…

Another one sided and biased article from the Echo. The objectors to Navitus are not representative of the wider local population and are a loud but very small minority. , I'm sure the Planning Inspector is used to local politicians hot air and scaremongering and realise that rather than objecting to Navitus Tory politicians Burns, Ellwood and Beesley are campaigning to secure votes in next years elections knowing full well that Jurassic Dorset is prime UKIP country.

So the ECHO is biased then and the people with a OPINION are a small minority and not representative.... Not so fast if the UKIP vote is anything to go by you are WRONG, But you would say that it is a minority and does not compute with my lefty point of View so it must be the view of only a few, what a one sided View. Look if it is so good and the wonderful end to all our worries "cheep as chips" power as far as electricity is concerned let them put up or shut up and pay for it without a subsidy NONE at all, Snow in Summer. Dream ON. Vote UKIP

Score: 1

mooninpisces says...3:24pm Mon 12 May 14

snowy123 wrote…

speedy231278 wrote…

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries! http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/aug/07/china-rar e-earth-village-poll ution

Can't wait for Mooninpisces comment on this !!! But perhaps as it is not her children that are being poisoned, it's not important. It is a different continent after all. This Nimby thing applies to both sides of the green argument. As long as the western world can feel smug about its carbon credentials then sod everyone else !

I'm not sure what I've done for a comment by me to be welcomed here.......But I'm just as appalled by the lax pollution controls and appalling working conditions of rare earth production in China as I would be if it was in Dorset. Turbine manufacturers (and smartphone manufacturers, and anyone else who uses rare earths) should be paying much more attention to the environmental and labour standards of their suppliers, but they tend to go for the lowest costs. A bit like electricity generators going for fossil fuels. That's capitalism for you.

[quote][p][bold]snowy123[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote:
Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries!
http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
012/aug/07/china-rar
e-earth-village-poll
ution[/p][/quote]Can't wait for Mooninpisces comment on this !!!
But perhaps as it is not her children that are being poisoned, it's not important. It is a different continent after all.
This Nimby thing applies to both sides of the green argument. As long as the western world can feel smug about its carbon credentials then sod everyone else ![/p][/quote]I'm not sure what I've done for a comment by me to be welcomed here.......But I'm just as appalled by the lax pollution controls and appalling working conditions of rare earth production in China as I would be if it was in Dorset. Turbine manufacturers (and smartphone manufacturers, and anyone else who uses rare earths) should be paying much more attention to the environmental and labour standards of their suppliers, but they tend to go for the lowest costs. A bit like electricity generators going for fossil fuels. That's capitalism for you.mooninpisces

snowy123 wrote…

speedy231278 wrote…

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries! http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/aug/07/china-rar e-earth-village-poll ution

Can't wait for Mooninpisces comment on this !!! But perhaps as it is not her children that are being poisoned, it's not important. It is a different continent after all. This Nimby thing applies to both sides of the green argument. As long as the western world can feel smug about its carbon credentials then sod everyone else !

I'm not sure what I've done for a comment by me to be welcomed here.......But I'm just as appalled by the lax pollution controls and appalling working conditions of rare earth production in China as I would be if it was in Dorset. Turbine manufacturers (and smartphone manufacturers, and anyone else who uses rare earths) should be paying much more attention to the environmental and labour standards of their suppliers, but they tend to go for the lowest costs. A bit like electricity generators going for fossil fuels. That's capitalism for you.

Score: -1

Ebb Tide says...3:36pm Mon 12 May 14

MeenyMiny wrote…

It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting. Comments clearly show that many people are for the wind farm as have independent surveys. By the same token, knowing from independent surveys that younger people are much more in favour of the wind farm, was this meeting adequately advertised by the council in the local colleges, clubs etc. frequented by the young? It is, after all, their future we are talking about. As is normal, objectors make far more noise that those who are happy about a development but objectors' comments that are blatantly misleading remained uncorrected e.g. felling of over 3,500 oak trees is a gross overestimation; the cable route will not remain "totally denuded" as all but trees with the biggest roots will be allowed to cover the route when construction of each length is completed. Mr Burns is definitely looking through blinkered eyes to compare Bournemouth with Barcelona as I see none of the wonderful architecture in Bournemouth that makes Barcelona such a beautiful wonder. Most importantly, however, how these objectors can leave such a legacy to future generations as, even the possibility of, the effects of climate change just because there are some things they think they won't like about efforts to prevent it is incredibly selfish and immoral. I guess they think that they won't be here to see it so just don't care.

Irrespective of the emotional rhetoric, what can UK Plc afford to sustain over the next two or three generations ?. Is anyone seriously expecting the pound sterling to appreciate in purchasing power ? If the pound is to remain steady or depreciate, why make commitments to other countries that cannot be sustained ? We need to use our own skills and resources to maximise our competitiveness. An alleged 'answer' to such questions that only last 15 years provided there are huge subsidies is not an acceptable answer to the questions posed - even if it satisfies our politicians so obviously concerned with short term fixes : selfish fixes that will only allow them to retain their seats for just a little while longer if the gullible can be suitably persuaded. Where is the convincing business case consistent with the credible energy policy for UK Plc ? Reports arising from the careful examination of the Navitus paperwork are awaited with interest.

[quote][p][bold]MeenyMiny[/bold] wrote:
It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting. Comments clearly show that many people are for the wind farm as have independent surveys.
By the same token, knowing from independent surveys that younger people are much more in favour of the wind farm, was this meeting adequately advertised by the council in the local colleges, clubs etc. frequented by the young? It is, after all, their future we are talking about.
As is normal, objectors make far more noise that those who are happy about a development but objectors' comments that are blatantly misleading remained uncorrected e.g. felling of over 3,500 oak trees is a gross overestimation; the cable route will not remain "totally denuded" as all but trees with the biggest roots will be allowed to cover the route when construction of each length is completed.
Mr Burns is definitely looking through blinkered eyes to compare Bournemouth with Barcelona as I see none of the wonderful architecture in Bournemouth that makes Barcelona such a beautiful wonder.
Most importantly, however, how these objectors can leave such a legacy to future generations as, even the possibility of, the effects of climate change just because there are some things they think they won't like about efforts to prevent it is incredibly selfish and immoral. I guess they think that they won't be here to see it so just don't care.[/p][/quote]Irrespective of the emotional rhetoric, what can UK Plc afford to sustain over the next two or three generations ?.
Is anyone seriously expecting the pound sterling to appreciate in purchasing power ? If the pound is to remain steady or depreciate, why make commitments to other countries that cannot be sustained ? We need to use our own skills and resources to maximise our competitiveness.
An alleged 'answer' to such questions that only last 15 years provided there are huge subsidies is not an acceptable answer to the questions posed - even if it satisfies our politicians so obviously concerned with short term fixes : selfish fixes that will only allow them to retain their seats for just a little while longer if the gullible can be suitably persuaded.
Where is the convincing business case consistent with the credible energy policy for UK Plc ? Reports arising from the careful examination of the Navitus paperwork are awaited with interest.Ebb Tide

MeenyMiny wrote…

It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting. Comments clearly show that many people are for the wind farm as have independent surveys. By the same token, knowing from independent surveys that younger people are much more in favour of the wind farm, was this meeting adequately advertised by the council in the local colleges, clubs etc. frequented by the young? It is, after all, their future we are talking about. As is normal, objectors make far more noise that those who are happy about a development but objectors' comments that are blatantly misleading remained uncorrected e.g. felling of over 3,500 oak trees is a gross overestimation; the cable route will not remain "totally denuded" as all but trees with the biggest roots will be allowed to cover the route when construction of each length is completed. Mr Burns is definitely looking through blinkered eyes to compare Bournemouth with Barcelona as I see none of the wonderful architecture in Bournemouth that makes Barcelona such a beautiful wonder. Most importantly, however, how these objectors can leave such a legacy to future generations as, even the possibility of, the effects of climate change just because there are some things they think they won't like about efforts to prevent it is incredibly selfish and immoral. I guess they think that they won't be here to see it so just don't care.

Irrespective of the emotional rhetoric, what can UK Plc afford to sustain over the next two or three generations ?. Is anyone seriously expecting the pound sterling to appreciate in purchasing power ? If the pound is to remain steady or depreciate, why make commitments to other countries that cannot be sustained ? We need to use our own skills and resources to maximise our competitiveness. An alleged 'answer' to such questions that only last 15 years provided there are huge subsidies is not an acceptable answer to the questions posed - even if it satisfies our politicians so obviously concerned with short term fixes : selfish fixes that will only allow them to retain their seats for just a little while longer if the gullible can be suitably persuaded. Where is the convincing business case consistent with the credible energy policy for UK Plc ? Reports arising from the careful examination of the Navitus paperwork are awaited with interest.

Score: 1

MeenyMiny says...3:58pm Mon 12 May 14

Ebb Tide I really wish that Navitus was an all-British venture with all the profits coming to this country but that's just not happening. Time is important as far as trying to reduce carbon emissions is concerned and how long can we wait for everything to be as we wish? It would be good to see the tidal and other marine technologies get going too but when will they actually get going? I'm hoping the lack of sunspots will be giving us a bit of breathing space.

Ebb Tide I really wish that Navitus was an all-British venture with all the profits coming to this country but that's just not happening. Time is important as far as trying to reduce carbon emissions is concerned and how long can we wait for everything to be as we wish?
It would be good to see the tidal and other marine technologies get going too but when will they actually get going? I'm hoping the lack of sunspots will be giving us a bit of breathing space.MeenyMiny

Ebb Tide I really wish that Navitus was an all-British venture with all the profits coming to this country but that's just not happening. Time is important as far as trying to reduce carbon emissions is concerned and how long can we wait for everything to be as we wish? It would be good to see the tidal and other marine technologies get going too but when will they actually get going? I'm hoping the lack of sunspots will be giving us a bit of breathing space.

Score: 1

a.g.o.g. says...11:22pm Mon 12 May 14

Well, apart from slapping a B.A.N.(on) A.N.A. who doesn`t even reach Muppett grade on plain logic never mind the topic of Nuclear (fast-breeder) Fission it is clear that the D.I.M.B.Y. brigade is either intentionally misleading or is sadly misled by the wall-to-wall pronouncements of AGW& CC that are being sung from the same Mantra Sheet by HMG downwards regardless of the total lack of even reasonably clear evidence of either even happening let alone being caused by anthropogenic use of fossil fuels. Co2 is the stuff of LIFE and not the pollutant that the smiley ones give you as well as being No.2 in the Planet Cooling GHG Dept. to Water Vapour and which they get away with because there are so many natural variables affecting weather and climate that prediction of what may happen in the short term let alone long has already proven to be near impossible - just look at the IPCC forecasts of rocketing temperatures and sea levels of ~20 years ago and where we are now, back to square one near enough despite the Co2 level increase continuing to rise year on year. (Thank You - Rest of The World.).

Well, apart from slapping a B.A.N.(on) A.N.A. who doesn`t even reach Muppett grade on plain logic never mind the topic of Nuclear (fast-breeder) Fission it is clear that the D.I.M.B.Y. brigade is either intentionally misleading or is sadly misled by the wall-to-wall pronouncements of AGW& CC that are being sung from the same Mantra Sheet by HMG downwards regardless of the total lack of even reasonably clear evidence of either even happening let alone being caused by anthropogenic use of fossil fuels.
Co2 is the stuff of LIFE and not the pollutant that the smiley ones give you as well as being No.2 in the Planet Cooling GHG Dept. to Water Vapour and which they get away with because there are so many natural variables affecting weather and climate that prediction of what may happen in the short term let alone long has already proven to be near impossible - just look at the IPCC forecasts of rocketing temperatures and sea levels of ~20 years ago and where we are now, back to square one near enough despite the Co2 level increase continuing to rise year on year.
(Thank You - Rest of The World.).a.g.o.g.

Well, apart from slapping a B.A.N.(on) A.N.A. who doesn`t even reach Muppett grade on plain logic never mind the topic of Nuclear (fast-breeder) Fission it is clear that the D.I.M.B.Y. brigade is either intentionally misleading or is sadly misled by the wall-to-wall pronouncements of AGW& CC that are being sung from the same Mantra Sheet by HMG downwards regardless of the total lack of even reasonably clear evidence of either even happening let alone being caused by anthropogenic use of fossil fuels. Co2 is the stuff of LIFE and not the pollutant that the smiley ones give you as well as being No.2 in the Planet Cooling GHG Dept. to Water Vapour and which they get away with because there are so many natural variables affecting weather and climate that prediction of what may happen in the short term let alone long has already proven to be near impossible - just look at the IPCC forecasts of rocketing temperatures and sea levels of ~20 years ago and where we are now, back to square one near enough despite the Co2 level increase continuing to rise year on year. (Thank You - Rest of The World.).

Score: 1

A N Archist says...12:49am Tue 13 May 14

@Ebb tide. You just dont get it do you? We cant use the nuclear waste to make more energy and use it to make juicy solider boy bombs or to flog overseas via the international arms industry mostly to sympathetic imperialist statists who buy our crap to make big juicy bombs too so the little boys of international statesmanship can play big boys in the international playground called the UN.

@Ebb tide. You just dont get it do you? We cant use the nuclear waste to make more energy and use it to make juicy solider boy bombs or to flog overseas via the international arms industry mostly to sympathetic imperialist statists who buy our crap to make big juicy bombs too so the little boys of international statesmanship can play big boys in the international playground called the UN.A N Archist

@Ebb tide. You just dont get it do you? We cant use the nuclear waste to make more energy and use it to make juicy solider boy bombs or to flog overseas via the international arms industry mostly to sympathetic imperialist statists who buy our crap to make big juicy bombs too so the little boys of international statesmanship can play big boys in the international playground called the UN.

Score: -4

A N Archist says...12:54am Tue 13 May 14

"It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting." They can't. There is now a major citizen journalism effort Bournemouth and county wide through Dorset Eye and Bournemouth District Searchlight. Make your own news, build your own readership and tell the corporates to get stuffed and ffs stop lining the pockets of Global International publishing corporates who know nothing of Dorset and its environs.

"It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting."
They can't. There is now a major citizen journalism effort Bournemouth and county wide through Dorset Eye and Bournemouth District Searchlight. Make your own news, build your own readership and tell the corporates to get stuffed and ffs stop lining the pockets of Global International publishing corporates who know nothing of Dorset and its environs.A N Archist

"It amazes me that the Bournemouth Echo can constantly get away with such biased reporting." They can't. There is now a major citizen journalism effort Bournemouth and county wide through Dorset Eye and Bournemouth District Searchlight. Make your own news, build your own readership and tell the corporates to get stuffed and ffs stop lining the pockets of Global International publishing corporates who know nothing of Dorset and its environs.

Score: -2

Ebb Tide says...9:48am Tue 13 May 14

A N Archist wrote…

@Ebb tide. You just dont get it do you? We cant use the nuclear waste to make more energy and use it to make juicy solider boy bombs or to flog overseas via the international arms industry mostly to sympathetic imperialist statists who buy our crap to make big juicy bombs too so the little boys of international statesmanship can play big boys in the international playground called the UN.

True ! Better to use nuclear waste (for civilized purposes) than keep it for the purposes you describe.

[quote][p][bold]A N Archist[/bold] wrote:
@Ebb tide. You just dont get it do you? We cant use the nuclear waste to make more energy and use it to make juicy solider boy bombs or to flog overseas via the international arms industry mostly to sympathetic imperialist statists who buy our crap to make big juicy bombs too so the little boys of international statesmanship can play big boys in the international playground called the UN.[/p][/quote]True ! Better to use nuclear waste (for civilized purposes) than keep it for the purposes you describe.Ebb Tide

A N Archist wrote…

@Ebb tide. You just dont get it do you? We cant use the nuclear waste to make more energy and use it to make juicy solider boy bombs or to flog overseas via the international arms industry mostly to sympathetic imperialist statists who buy our crap to make big juicy bombs too so the little boys of international statesmanship can play big boys in the international playground called the UN.

True ! Better to use nuclear waste (for civilized purposes) than keep it for the purposes you describe.

Score: 1

Ebb Tide says...9:50am Tue 13 May 14

MeenyMiny wrote…

Ebb Tide I really wish that Navitus was an all-British venture with all the profits coming to this country but that's just not happening. Time is important as far as trying to reduce carbon emissions is concerned and how long can we wait for everything to be as we wish? It would be good to see the tidal and other marine technologies get going too but when will they actually get going? I'm hoping the lack of sunspots will be giving us a bit of breathing space.

I suspect we share the need for a credible energy policy not incredible 'window dressing' of the matter.

[quote][p][bold]MeenyMiny[/bold] wrote:
Ebb Tide I really wish that Navitus was an all-British venture with all the profits coming to this country but that's just not happening. Time is important as far as trying to reduce carbon emissions is concerned and how long can we wait for everything to be as we wish?
It would be good to see the tidal and other marine technologies get going too but when will they actually get going? I'm hoping the lack of sunspots will be giving us a bit of breathing space.[/p][/quote]I suspect we share the need for a credible energy policy not incredible 'window dressing' of the matter.Ebb Tide

MeenyMiny wrote…

Ebb Tide I really wish that Navitus was an all-British venture with all the profits coming to this country but that's just not happening. Time is important as far as trying to reduce carbon emissions is concerned and how long can we wait for everything to be as we wish? It would be good to see the tidal and other marine technologies get going too but when will they actually get going? I'm hoping the lack of sunspots will be giving us a bit of breathing space.

I suspect we share the need for a credible energy policy not incredible 'window dressing' of the matter.

Score: 1

TheDistrict says...10:30am Tue 13 May 14

Navitus, take no notice of the so called environmentalists, just get on and build it. We need alternative energy, and we need it soon. Far better than a nuclear or fossil fuelled plant.

Navitus, take no notice of the so called environmentalists, just get on and build it. We need alternative energy, and we need it soon. Far better than a nuclear or fossil fuelled plant.TheDistrict

Navitus, take no notice of the so called environmentalists, just get on and build it. We need alternative energy, and we need it soon. Far better than a nuclear or fossil fuelled plant.

Score: -2

OB Wan says...5:09pm Tue 13 May 14

A N Archist wrote…

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are. No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future. This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones. The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are. I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England. Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years. Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield. Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash. "Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset. "We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide. "Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table. "We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost. "Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest. Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.

It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost. To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue. If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden. There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally. The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience. To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach. To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farms

[quote][p][bold]A N Archist[/bold] wrote:
I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are.
No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future.
This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones.
The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are.
I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England.
Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years.
Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield.
Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash.
"Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset.
"We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide.
"Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table.
"We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost.
"Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest.
Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.[/p][/quote]It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost.
To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue.
If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden.
There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally.
The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience.
To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach.
To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farmsOB Wan

A N Archist wrote…

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are. No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future. This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones. The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are. I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England. Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years. Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield. Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash. "Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset. "We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide. "Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table. "We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost. "Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest. Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.

It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost. To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue. If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden. There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally. The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience. To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach. To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farms

Score: -1

Dorset Logic says...5:42pm Tue 13 May 14

Look out kids, the baby boomers are looking after themselves again,

Look out kids, the baby boomers are looking after themselves again,Dorset Logic

Look out kids, the baby boomers are looking after themselves again,

Score: -3

Ebb Tide says...6:00pm Tue 13 May 14

TheDistrict wrote…

Navitus, take no notice of the so called environmentalists, just get on and build it. We need alternative energy, and we need it soon. Far better than a nuclear or fossil fuelled plant.

Looks like you've heard the cry of the other leading lemmings as they hurtle towards their chosen destination without any thought of wondering whether this is the only way to go !

[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote:
Navitus, take no notice of the so called environmentalists, just get on and build it. We need alternative energy, and we need it soon. Far better than a nuclear or fossil fuelled plant.[/p][/quote]Looks like you've heard the cry of the other leading lemmings as they hurtle towards their chosen destination without any thought of wondering whether this is the only way to go !Ebb Tide

TheDistrict wrote…

Navitus, take no notice of the so called environmentalists, just get on and build it. We need alternative energy, and we need it soon. Far better than a nuclear or fossil fuelled plant.

Looks like you've heard the cry of the other leading lemmings as they hurtle towards their chosen destination without any thought of wondering whether this is the only way to go !

Score: 2

lionheart says...6:55pm Tue 13 May 14

OB Wan wrote…

A N Archist wrote…

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are. No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future. This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones. The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are. I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England. Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years. Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield. Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash. "Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset. "We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide. "Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table. "We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost. "Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest. Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.

It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost. To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue. If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden. There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally. The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience. To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach. To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farms

Quite agree. Serious studies by respected organisations in the USA have proved that wind turbines are a danger to wild birds. Some wind turbines in the US have been turned off because of the number of birds being smashed to pieces.

[quote][p][bold]OB Wan[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A N Archist[/bold] wrote:
I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are.
No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future.
This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones.
The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are.
I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England.
Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years.
Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield.
Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash.
"Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset.
"We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide.
"Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table.
"We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost.
"Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest.
Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.[/p][/quote]It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost.
To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue.
If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden.
There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally.
The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience.
To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach.
To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farms[/p][/quote]Quite agree. Serious studies by respected organisations in the USA have proved that wind turbines are a danger to wild birds. Some wind turbines in the US have been turned off because of the number of birds being smashed to pieces.lionheart

OB Wan wrote…

A N Archist wrote…

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are. No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future. This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones. The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are. I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England. Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years. Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield. Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash. "Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset. "We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide. "Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table. "We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost. "Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest. Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.

It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost. To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue. If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden. There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally. The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience. To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach. To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farms

Quite agree. Serious studies by respected organisations in the USA have proved that wind turbines are a danger to wild birds. Some wind turbines in the US have been turned off because of the number of birds being smashed to pieces.

Score: 3

retry69 says...6:59pm Tue 13 May 14

lionheart wrote…

OB Wan wrote…

A N Archist wrote…

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are. No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future. This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones. The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are. I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England. Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years. Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield. Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash. "Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset. "We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide. "Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table. "We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost. "Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest. Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.

It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost. To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue. If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden. There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally. The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience. To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach. To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farms

Quite agree. Serious studies by respected organisations in the USA have proved that wind turbines are a danger to wild birds. Some wind turbines in the US have been turned off because of the number of birds being smashed to pieces.

And pigs ?

[quote][p][bold]lionheart[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OB Wan[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A N Archist[/bold] wrote:
I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are.
No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future.
This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones.
The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are.
I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England.
Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years.
Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield.
Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash.
"Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset.
"We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide.
"Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table.
"We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost.
"Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest.
Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.[/p][/quote]It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost.
To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue.
If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden.
There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally.
The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience.
To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach.
To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farms[/p][/quote]Quite agree. Serious studies by respected organisations in the USA have proved that wind turbines are a danger to wild birds. Some wind turbines in the US have been turned off because of the number of birds being smashed to pieces.[/p][/quote]And pigs ?retry69

lionheart wrote…

OB Wan wrote…

A N Archist wrote…

I am 60, live in Bournemouth and was at the meeting. Right; credentials established. So who wasn't at the meeting? Be easier to tell you who was middle-class retired baby boomers who will be dead soon so just want to keep things the way they are. No young people who will have to clear the mess up, no migrant workers of whatever ethnicity, no young families who have a lot to loose in the future. This meeting was a joke. The only issues it addressed were c(C)onservative ones. The bit about the tourist trade and jobs. Oh yeah, those living wage sustainable jobs we are all so proud of, not the seasonal hire and fire, low wage, 0 hour contract exploitative crud that they really are. I used to live in Yorkshire; I travelled widely across the North of England. Fact: Look south down the Vale of York towards Selby. The horizon is dotted with coal fired power stations pouring garbage out all over the place. You really wouldn't want to live in the Wakefield, Doncaster, Rotherham, Selby, and Pontefract area but those good folk have put up with pollution for years. Take a trip to Whitehaven in Cumbria. Nice place it would seem nestled as it is in a small coastal valley in the North West. Oh yeah? walk 2 miles south across the cliff tops and nestled in the next valley you will find a real nightmare. Sellafield. Dorset puts nothing into the national grid and freeloads off of the rest of the national infrastructure who, incidentally pay their bills too so that one doesnt wash. "Its inefficient and expensive". All technology is inefficient and expensive when it's young. It needs time to develop so an R&D program is required. Why not in Dorset. "We don't do wind farms we do tourism" only a tory MP could come out with this one. Yes to exploitation, no to technological advancement and the better quality jobs it could provide. "Bournemouth is special". Ok it's not a bad place but no better or worse than anywhere else I've seen. The North Norfolk coast around Cromer and Sheringham is lovely, Cornwall's lovely, Devon's lovely, North Yorkshire is lovely. In the league of lovely Bournemouth rates about mid table. "We need to keep this area special". Fine. Don't join in the fight against climate change likewise don't complain when the rest of the world refuses to come to your aid if the worst happens. You didn't play your part so you can get lost. "Climate change has always happened" or "Climate change is a myth". Really? I'm no scientist so who do I believe the energy company sponsored so-called neutrals or the IPCC and their empirical peer reviewed evidence along with such heavyweights as Richard Attenborough maintain it is happening and it is at least accelerated by anthropogenic activity. No contest. Dorset must play it's part in this global issue. To not do so would be a betrayal of future generations. The sooner these mega pensioned baby boomer BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anywhere) are dead and gone the better; they are a nasty horrible group of selfish, self righteous, overdemanding filth don't care for anyone except themselves. Good riddance to bad tory rubbish.

It amazes me of the blatant self-interest shown by a significant number of people at the meeting pursuing a green agenda. I am certain that like many renewable energy companies Navitus provides financial support either directly or indirectly to environmental groups who obviously in this case have decided to support wind farms at any cost. To me it is counter intuitive why groups that are meant to be protecting the beauty of the earth should support a project that will destroy one of the most beautiful vistas in England, compromise marine life, perhaps have a detrimental effect on birds and destroy precious trees in the New Forest. They must only be following a financial incentive - this is not about wind farms per se it is this location that is the issue. If you have a beautiful house you don't put the bins or the oil generator in the middle of the beautiful garden. There was not one argument put by either the developer or any green campaigner as to why this had to be on this site - only broad generalisations on climate change generally. The median t.v. coverage was biased in that the lady in green was the only person who ranted at the audience everyone else was almost polite in the extreme. The reason she was booed was not the message but the delivery and the evidence for that was that no other green campaigners were booed either on the platform or in the audience. To my mind the people that are most affected should be the ones that have the most say. That means Bournemouth Council on behalf of our economy and anyone living or visiting the cliff top and beach. To the green lobby I say give this one up - pursue beauty rather than ideology - you are losing credibility and I say that as someone who likes wind farms

Quite agree. Serious studies by respected organisations in the USA have proved that wind turbines are a danger to wild birds. Some wind turbines in the US have been turned off because of the number of birds being smashed to pieces.

And pigs ?

Score: -3

tsheldon says...7:17pm Tue 13 May 14

Please don't overlook the impact of the substation being built between West Moors and Three Legged Cross as this will also have an impact on local residents (especially those on the main road and Dymewood Rd. We already have the large Mannington substation close to us and we will now have another substation within 400 metres of the house. We are really worried about o Significant noise during construction and vibration from piling activity, which will continue for more than 12 months o Construction traffic and noise during the build phase o Noise of the substation post-construction o Measured electromagnetic fields such as those produced by substations have been associated with health effects such as cancer, depression, dementia, infertility, miscarriage, heart problems, etc. – We are concerned about our health and those of our neighbours o Substations close to homes make properties harder to sell. Sally Sims and Peter Dent of Oxford Brookes University in 2005 published that showed that the close presence of a substation could reduce the number of potential buyers by up to 63% o It is understood that the Army base onto which the substation will back is a large strategic military fuel depot. We are concerned about the additional risks attached to the proximity of these 2 sites o The impact on flora and fauna on the proposed site o Most importantly, the impact on local residents backing onto the proposed substation site. We bought our homes as we wanted to live in a quiet, rural environment, surrounded by the sounds of nature – this is now at risk. I do not believe for a second that there are not other sites in Dorset that would not impact on people....and there must be somewhere closer to shore, that avoids the need for 35 miles of cabling through the county

Please don't overlook the impact of the substation being built between West Moors and Three Legged Cross as this will also have an impact on local residents (especially those on the main road and Dymewood Rd. We already have the large Mannington substation close to us and we will now have another substation within 400 metres of the house. We are really worried about
o Significant noise during construction and vibration from piling activity, which will continue for more than 12 months
o Construction traffic and noise during the build phase
o Noise of the substation post-construction
o Measured electromagnetic fields such as those produced by substations have been associated with health effects such as cancer, depression, dementia, infertility, miscarriage, heart problems, etc. – We are concerned about our health and those of our neighbours
o Substations close to homes make properties harder to sell. Sally Sims and Peter Dent of Oxford Brookes University in 2005 published that showed that the close presence of a substation could reduce the number of potential buyers by up to 63%
o It is understood that the Army base onto which the substation will back is a large strategic military fuel depot. We are concerned about the additional risks attached to the proximity of these 2 sites
o The impact on flora and fauna on the proposed site
o Most importantly, the impact on local residents backing onto the proposed substation site. We bought our homes as we wanted to live in a quiet, rural environment, surrounded by the sounds of nature – this is now at risk.
I do not believe for a second that there are not other sites in Dorset that would not impact on people....and there must be somewhere closer to shore, that avoids the need for 35 miles of cabling through the countytsheldon

Please don't overlook the impact of the substation being built between West Moors and Three Legged Cross as this will also have an impact on local residents (especially those on the main road and Dymewood Rd. We already have the large Mannington substation close to us and we will now have another substation within 400 metres of the house. We are really worried about o Significant noise during construction and vibration from piling activity, which will continue for more than 12 months o Construction traffic and noise during the build phase o Noise of the substation post-construction o Measured electromagnetic fields such as those produced by substations have been associated with health effects such as cancer, depression, dementia, infertility, miscarriage, heart problems, etc. – We are concerned about our health and those of our neighbours o Substations close to homes make properties harder to sell. Sally Sims and Peter Dent of Oxford Brookes University in 2005 published that showed that the close presence of a substation could reduce the number of potential buyers by up to 63% o It is understood that the Army base onto which the substation will back is a large strategic military fuel depot. We are concerned about the additional risks attached to the proximity of these 2 sites o The impact on flora and fauna on the proposed site o Most importantly, the impact on local residents backing onto the proposed substation site. We bought our homes as we wanted to live in a quiet, rural environment, surrounded by the sounds of nature – this is now at risk. I do not believe for a second that there are not other sites in Dorset that would not impact on people....and there must be somewhere closer to shore, that avoids the need for 35 miles of cabling through the county

Score: 0

nobodyexpectedthat says...10:02am Wed 14 May 14

I challenge Bournemouth Borough Council as a statutory consultee to ask all its residents whether they are for or against the wind farm. Then, and perhaps only then, will we know the true feeling of residents. The blatantly one-sided 'public debate' was clearly a PR stunt that may well backfire come election time. As one reader has stated in today's Echo, a whole generation were underrepresented at the meeting and this is a travesty. I call upon the young people of Bournemouth to voice their views and challenge the NIMBYs and those who still want to rely on outdated, dirty, expensive fossil fuels and nuclear power. Just look at what's happened in Turkey today - an undeniable and yet another tragic example how fossil fuels cost lives - in the past and today but lets hope that this sorry tragedy is banished to the history books.

I challenge Bournemouth Borough Council as a statutory consultee to ask all its residents whether they are for or against the wind farm. Then, and perhaps only then, will we know the true feeling of residents.
The blatantly one-sided 'public debate' was clearly a PR stunt that may well backfire come election time.
As one reader has stated in today's Echo, a whole generation were underrepresented at the meeting and this is a travesty. I call upon the young people of Bournemouth to voice their views and challenge the NIMBYs and those who still want to rely on outdated, dirty, expensive fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Just look at what's happened in Turkey today - an undeniable and yet another tragic example how fossil fuels cost lives - in the past and today but lets hope that this sorry tragedy is banished to the history books.nobodyexpectedthat

I challenge Bournemouth Borough Council as a statutory consultee to ask all its residents whether they are for or against the wind farm. Then, and perhaps only then, will we know the true feeling of residents. The blatantly one-sided 'public debate' was clearly a PR stunt that may well backfire come election time. As one reader has stated in today's Echo, a whole generation were underrepresented at the meeting and this is a travesty. I call upon the young people of Bournemouth to voice their views and challenge the NIMBYs and those who still want to rely on outdated, dirty, expensive fossil fuels and nuclear power. Just look at what's happened in Turkey today - an undeniable and yet another tragic example how fossil fuels cost lives - in the past and today but lets hope that this sorry tragedy is banished to the history books.

Score: 0

The Archer says...8:02am Thu 15 May 14

speedy231278 wrote…

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries! http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/aug/07/china-rar e-earth-village-poll ution

no such page

[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote:
Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries!
http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
012/aug/07/china-rar
e-earth-village-poll
ution[/p][/quote]no such pageThe Archer

speedy231278 wrote…

Here is where the magnets for your beloved turbines come from. A process so filthy it would be banned from most countries! http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 012/aug/07/china-rar e-earth-village-poll ution

no such page

Score: 0

TOM AND JANE says...1:02pm Fri 16 May 14

Rubbish, Dorset has been contributing to the countries power for many many years,, both at the Arne Peninsular and Kimmeridge. To argue that we owe it to the UK to ruin our magnificent Bay, an area of natural beauty and risk the status of England's only World Heritage Sight is incomprehensive. To believe we are saving the world and our climate by savings in CO2 is aji fallacy. In fact this scheme will, if ever constructed, produce considerably more, rather than less. Our tourism could be badly effected,. For instance, fog could well be induced and a significant temperature drop too, a risk we simply cannot accept. If ever built our electrical costs will be the highest in Europe (thanks to the Publc Purse), resulting in our manufacturing costs being uncompetitive. This wind farm should never be built in Poole Bay or for that matter elsewhere.

Rubbish, Dorset has been contributing to the countries power for many many years,, both at the Arne Peninsular and Kimmeridge.
To argue that we owe it to the UK to ruin our magnificent Bay, an area of natural beauty and risk the status of England's only World Heritage Sight is incomprehensive.
To believe we are saving the world and our climate by savings in CO2 is aji fallacy. In fact this scheme will, if ever constructed, produce considerably more, rather than less. Our tourism could be badly effected,. For instance, fog could well be induced and a significant temperature drop too, a risk we simply cannot accept.
If ever built our electrical costs will be the highest in Europe (thanks to the Publc Purse), resulting in our manufacturing costs being uncompetitive. This wind farm should never be built in Poole Bay or for that matter elsewhere.TOM AND JANE

Rubbish, Dorset has been contributing to the countries power for many many years,, both at the Arne Peninsular and Kimmeridge. To argue that we owe it to the UK to ruin our magnificent Bay, an area of natural beauty and risk the status of England's only World Heritage Sight is incomprehensive. To believe we are saving the world and our climate by savings in CO2 is aji fallacy. In fact this scheme will, if ever constructed, produce considerably more, rather than less. Our tourism could be badly effected,. For instance, fog could well be induced and a significant temperature drop too, a risk we simply cannot accept. If ever built our electrical costs will be the highest in Europe (thanks to the Publc Purse), resulting in our manufacturing costs being uncompetitive. This wind farm should never be built in Poole Bay or for that matter elsewhere.

Score: -1

TOM AND JANE says...1:06pm Fri 16 May 14

Rubbish, Dorset has been contributing to the countries power for many many years,, both at the Arne Peninsular and Kimmeridge. To argue that we owe it to the UK to ruin our magnificent Bay, an area of natural beauty and risk the status of England's only World Heritage Sight is incomprehensive. To believe we are saving the world and our climate by savings in CO2 is a complete fallacy. In fact this scheme will, if ever constructed, produce considerably more, rather than less. Our tourism could be badly effected, for instance, fog could well be induced and a significant temperature drop too, a risk we simply cannot accept. If ever built our electrical costs will be the highest in Europe (thanks to the Publc Purse), resulting in our manufacturing costs being uncompetitive. This wind farm should never be built in Poole Bay or for that matter elsewhere.

Rubbish, Dorset has been contributing to the countries power for many many years,, both at the Arne Peninsular and Kimmeridge.
To argue that we owe it to the UK to ruin our magnificent Bay, an area of natural beauty and risk the status of England's only World Heritage Sight is incomprehensive.
To believe we are saving the world and our climate by savings in CO2 is a complete fallacy. In fact this scheme will, if ever constructed, produce considerably more, rather than less. Our tourism could be badly effected, for instance, fog could well be induced and a significant temperature drop too, a risk we simply cannot accept.
If ever built our electrical costs will be the highest in Europe (thanks to the Publc Purse), resulting in our manufacturing costs being uncompetitive.
This wind farm should never be built in Poole Bay or for that matter elsewhere.TOM AND JANE

Rubbish, Dorset has been contributing to the countries power for many many years,, both at the Arne Peninsular and Kimmeridge. To argue that we owe it to the UK to ruin our magnificent Bay, an area of natural beauty and risk the status of England's only World Heritage Sight is incomprehensive. To believe we are saving the world and our climate by savings in CO2 is a complete fallacy. In fact this scheme will, if ever constructed, produce considerably more, rather than less. Our tourism could be badly effected, for instance, fog could well be induced and a significant temperature drop too, a risk we simply cannot accept. If ever built our electrical costs will be the highest in Europe (thanks to the Publc Purse), resulting in our manufacturing costs being uncompetitive. This wind farm should never be built in Poole Bay or for that matter elsewhere.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here